I've been googling the net looking for third party commentary or white
papers discussing the necessity to certify hardware drivers with the
Microsoft labs.  Of course everything I read on the Microsoft site is
propaganda, so that's not a good place to go.  This certification
process is time consuming and expensive, but inevitably necessary. 
However, there is a particular scanner model in use presently that is
lacking in XP certified drivers, yet the Windows 2000 drivers work
fine.  I must present some sort of third party evidence (whether it be
opinion or white paper) on behalf of the manufacturer, to the retailer
discussing this issue and declaring that there should be no fear on
the part of the puchasing consumer who might be intimidated by seeing
the "This hardware as not been certified by Microsoft" message upon
first connecting it.  It would greatly aid me in this sale to have
some sort of writing declaring that it's not absolutely necessary to
have XP certified drivers.  Commentary by a notable person in the
technology industry would be fine.  So would a technical paper
discussing the issue.  I've tried some comp.* newsgroups and the
experts-exchange website, but have had no luck.

It's likely that I'll need an answer today (Thurs. Aug. 15), and will
try to be as responsive as
possible to follow up questions.  If it's impossible to answer today,
email me to find out if the situation is still relevant before
researching the issue.  If a phone call is precedented, I can be
reached at 434-962-8999.

---

Request for Question Clarification by joseleon-ga on 15 Aug 2002 08:46 PDT

Do you think a list of installation processes of different hardware
devices which cause this message to show on Windows XP, and the
hardware finally runs fine on it, would convince your retailers?

Regards.

---

Clarification of Question by peedog-ga on 15 Aug 2002 13:22 PDT

The information requested is some commentary or whitepaper of a
technical nature discussing the gerneral harmlessness of installing a
Windows 2000 driver on Windows XP.  I've tried to convince management
of other ways around the problem, but they are already aware of them. 
The manufacturer is not going to go to the retailer and immediately
defend the product against claims that no consumer would want to buy a
device that is not certified for Windows XP, whether it will work or
not.  This information is to be used in an "just-in-case" basis.  As
I've already done a bit of research it may not be worth it for Google
Answers to continue with this question because my deadline is at
5:30PM EST today (Thurs., Aug. 15).
Thanks.

Dear peedog:

Thank you for your question. Here's what I've found:

The below is a quote from a newsgroup posting by Microsoft employee
Stephen Keen:

"Unsigned means they have not or do not meet testing standards by the
same test group. This does not make them junk, it just means they have
not completed tests. Unfortunaely, it takes time to test and some of
the unsigned will become signed in time, some will not.  Drivers are
continously being upgraded and build for performance and fixed. So
often Unsigned will work beautifully..."
Source: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=OGSKY0nqBHA.2540%40tkmsftngp04&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DWHQL%2Bunsigned%2Bdrivers%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg

Matrox.com has a short guide for their consumers on which drivers they
should download. The choice is between the latest (non WHQL) drivers,
and the WHQL drivers. Here is what they had to say:

"Matrox Latest Drivers
Stay ahead with up-to-date drivers that push your Matrox products to
new performance levels. The Latest Driver versions are the most
frequently updated Matrox drivers.

Essentially...
...if you want a driver tested to meet Microsoft guidelines, you
should download the WHQL certified driver.
...if you want the most recent bug fixes and performance enhancements
for your graphics card, you should download the latest Matrox driver."
Source:  http://www.matrox.com/mga/archive_story/feb99/new_drvs_sect.cfm

As you can see, it's not only not absolutely necessary to install WHQL
drivers, but in some cases, unsigned drivers may actually be
advantageous.

Douglas Ludens, MCSE, wrote an article on the subject at about.com:

"Okay, so most third-party vendors are going to make an effort to
submit their drivers for the WHQL testing.  But what about those
drivers that don't get submitted (or don't pass...)?  Or what about
older devices, where the NT4 driver works just fine?  Driver signing,
at this point, is merely informational.  You still have the ability to
install whatever drivers you can get to install, for better or worse. 
In some cases, Windows NT drivers -- or even Windows 98 drivers -- may
work just fine. "
Source: http://windows.about.com/library/weekly/aa000827a.htm

Finally, there is a CNET article on the subject that echoes this same
opinion:

"Should you avoid unsigned drivers? While some may cause problems,
others should work fine. Figure 2 shows an unsigned driver for a Net
Camera that worked flawlessly on a Windows XP computer. The driver's
Details page shows that, though unsigned, the driver is hardly
suspicious: it's from IBM. Why was this driver unsigned? This
particular model of Net Camera was manufactured and shipped well
before Windows XP was released, so the driver in the packaged product
didn't have a chance to make it to the WHQL for testing against XP."
Source: http://216.239.35.100/search?q=cache:IFUOimIwPNwC:home.cnet.com/software/0-806182-8-8952717-3.html+unsigned+drivers&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Google Search Strategy:

"whql certified" newest OR latest drivers
latest drivers not "whql certified"
WHQL unsigned drivers
WHQL certification unnecessary

I hope this helps! If you need any clarifications, please don't
hesitate to ask.

Best Regards,
blader-ga

---

Clarification of Answer by blader-ga on 15 Aug 2002 14:02 PDT

In response to your last request for clarification, here's some
additional info I pulled up:

The consensus for the best course of action when no XP signed drivers
are available appears to be "just use the Windows 2000 drivers."

Notes:

* Many Windows 2000 drivers should work under Windows XP.
Source: http://www.techadvice.com/w98/x/issue_xp.asp

"If you're trying to force an older piece of hardware to function
properly under Windows XP using a Windows 2000 driver, you will get a
warning that the driver that you are about to install may not function
properly. Simply select "Continue Anyway." Windows 2000 drivers should
work in a pinch, to avoid having to purchase new hardware components."
Source: http://www.computerbits.com/archive/2002/0100/upgradetoxp.html

"As a general rule of thumb if Windows XP doesn't recognize your
hardware and there are no  XP drivers available always try Windows
2000 drivers, do not use Windows 98/ME drivers. "
Source: http://dave-partridge.com/faq.shtml

Hope this helps!

Best Regards,
blader-ga